"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote on 10/03/2006 08:12:03 PM:
> That's looking too closely at the details. After all, if it were not
> for the desire to transmit the identifying information, WS-RM would
> not need a special URI - it could and would use the existing anonymous
URI.
identifying info is one part yes - and it seems odd that people are
put off by that since URIs are usually used to identify resources :-)
However, the other part is the semantics of how to connect to the
endpoint - which is no different then http://... vs smtp://...
vs anon vs pipe-X ...
> I don't see any need for a slew of new "magic" URIs. I don't like
> "magic" values - anonymous is sensible, and none is acceptable, but
> encouraging the creation of more is a very bad idea. Magic values
> suggest that we got the design wrong and that we need these magic
> values to indicate that we're deviating from the original design.
Not necessarily - what it means is that WSA couldn't anticipate
all possible mechanisms of how to identify/connect to the other
endpoint. It would be wrong to think it could.
-Doug
> Tony Rogers
> tony.rogers@ca.com
>
>
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 October 2006 7:11
> To: bob@freunds.com
> Cc: [WS-A]; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What problem are we trying to solve?
>
> Bob,
> A couple of points:
>
> - A4 - if I'm reading your text right, I believe you're saying that
> other specs can define their own replyTo header. And this is true.
> However, this means that WSA is extensible by allowing people to
> avoid WSA. Funny :-)
>
> - Despite all of the talk around CR33, the issue is not about
> transmitting identifying information. Nor is it about whether or
> not identifying information should be placed in the URI or in some
> Reference Parameter/Property. The issue around CR33 is whether or
> not WSA will allow other specs to define new 'special' non-
> addressable URIs and allow them to be used in the wsa:
> ReplyTo/FaultTo. That's it. It doesn't matter what the semantics
> of those URIs are, it doesn't matter how people are going to use
> them - its much simpler than that. Can other specs do exactly what
> WSA did and define new URIs? Any discussion about whether or not a
> spec made the right choice to do that is not relevant. WSA needs to
> answer the very simple question from a more abstract point of view
> and once that answer is found then I think everything else will fall
> into place.
>
> So, does the WSA WG think that no other spec, for all time, will
> ever need to define a new special non-addressable URI that may be
> used in ReplyTo/FaultTo? (like ws-rm or ws-discovery did)
>
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
> "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> 10/03/2006 09:01 AM
>
> To
>
> "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> What problem are we trying to solve?
>
>
>
>
> This is a list of the results, as I heard them, of our discussion on
> 2006-10-02 related to our response to CR33
>
> Exposition:
> It seems that the desire inferred by the issue is that an endpoint
> would like to transmit identifying information (or perhaps some
> other parametric information) in a one way message, and that one way
> message is intended to be used to ?open the backchannel? upon which
> may be transmitted information that is determined in part by the
> identifying or parametric information transmitted in the originating
> message. In the specific use case presented, the issue originator
> proposes that this identifying or parametric information be passed
> in the replyTo uri as a special form of ?anonymous?. CR33 states
> that the WS-Addressing WSDL binding CR document would create
> interoperability issues with their implementation since it does not
> permit a form of anonymous other than the literal ?anonymous? to be
> represented in WSDL.
>
> In the WS-Addressing Teleconference of 2006-10-02, there was a
> brainstorming session intended to clarify exactly what problem the
> WS-Addressing working group was trying to solve related to its
> resolution of CR33 since several proposals related to a direct
> response to CR33 have failed as yet to gain consensus.
>
> Alternatives mentioned: (please feel free to come up with more if
> you have a better idea)
>
> A1) During the progress of the WS-Addressing working group, a
> feature known as Reference Properties was removed from the original
> submission. If this were to be added back, then this could be used
> to convey such identifying or parametric information. This would
> imply changes to both rec level specifications as well as the WSDL
> binding. It is not clear if these might be ?breaking changes?.
>
> A2) The WS-Addressing specifications include a feature known as
> Reference Parameters which are created by the epr minter which are
> considered to be ?opaque? to all but the minter. Outside of the WS-
> Addressing ?layer? there may be no such constraint. Reference
> Parameters might be used to convey this identifying or parametric
> information. Note that there is not general agreement that WS-
> Addressing is a ?layer? or if it is a set of kit parts which may be
> used at any layer. This might imply a clarifying change to WS-
> Addressing specifications.
>
> A3) WS-Addressing includes a feature known as ?From? which contains
> a uri. There are no behavioral constraints imposed by ?From? and
> potentially anything that might be represented as a uri might be
> conveyed. This might imply a clarifying change to WS-Addressing
> specifications.
>
> A4) WS-Addressing defined a limited set of special URLs which mean
> specific things to WS-Addressing when used in replyTo. These are
> ?anonymous? and ?none?. If the behavior specified by WS-Addressing
> is not desired, then the authors of other specifications might
> specify their own forms of replyTo semantics appropriate to their
> application without WS-Addressing implications. This would imply
> that CR33 be closed with no action.
>
> A5) It was suggested that there is wide latitude in what might be
> contained in a SOAP header and the authors might be able to use such
> a means to convey the desired identifying or parametric information.
> This would imply that CR33 be closed with no action.
>
> A6) WS-Addressing Core and SOAP binding are fine as-is, but we just
> need to fix the WSDL binding or perhaps come up with a WSDL cum
> policy related change. For proposals related to this alternative,
> please refer to the issue list.
>
> For the purposes of this thread please identify in the subject line
> the alternative A[1-n] referenced or ?exposition? if you feel the
> problem statement needs improvement.
>
> Thanks
> -bob
>
>
>
>
>